Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, May 14,2013

May 14, 2013 – 5:00 PM

PRESENT: Chairman Ron Bracken
Commissioner Kim Campbell
Commissioner Julie Hullinger
Commissioner Ron Read (entered meeting at 5:06 PM)
Commissioner Ross Taylor
Commissioner Ro Wilkinson
Council Member Jimmie Hughes (entered meeting at 5:40 PM)

CITY STAFF: Community Development Coordinator Bob Nicholson
Planner II Ray Snyder
Planner I Craig Harvey
Development Services Manager Wes Jenkins
Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth (Herein “Attorney Farnsworth)
(entered meeting at 7:08 PM)
Administrative Secretary Cathy Dekker

EXCUSED: Commissioner Nathan Fisher
Project Manager Todd Jacobsen


Chairman Bracken called the meeting to order and led the flag salute.


A. Consider approval of a Final Plat for “The Village at Little Valley Phase 2” a twenty (20) lot single family subdivision. The representative is Mr. Roger Bundy, R & B Surveying. The property is zoned R-1-12 (Single Family Residential 12,000 square foot minimum lot size) and is located at 2350 East Street and approximately 3400 South (Little Valley area, south of the Little Valley Elementary School). Case No. 2013-FP-017.

Wes Jenkins, Development Services Manager, presented the Final Plat listed above.

Commissioner Taylor entered the meeting at 5:03 PM.
B. Consider approval of a Final Plat for “Bloomington Country Club No. 9 Subdivision Amended” a forty-one (41) lot single family subdivision. The representative is Mr. Scott Woolsey, Alpha Engineering. The property is zoned R-1-10 (Single Family Residential 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) and is located between 2764 Moody Circle and 748 Escalante Drive (in the Bloomington Development). Case No. 2012-FPA-032.

Mr. Jenkins presented the Final Plat Amendment listed above. The purpose of the Final Plat Amendment is to adjust the Lot Line and Easement Line between Lots 3 & 4. This is due to the house on Lot 4 was built encroaching onto Lot 3. The applicant is the owner of both Lots (homes) and is trying to comply with zoning regulations (setback standards). By adjusting the Lot Line and Easement Line to run in between the existing homes this brings him into compliance.


Consider approval to vacate a Public Utility and Drainage Easement and to merge two parcels into one parcel for “Lot 23 of the Pointe West Estates Subdivision.” The representative is Mr. Roger Bundy, R & B Surveying. The property is zoned R-1-10 (Single Family Residential 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) and is located at 1731 Bridge Pointe Way (north of the Santa Clara River and east of Dixie Drive). Case No. 2013-LRE-010.

Commissioner Read entered the meeting at 5:07 PM.

Mr. Jenkins presented for approval to vacate a Public Utility and Drainage Easement and merge two parcels into one parcel. This easement is located at the rear of the parcel. When the house was built and the swimming pool installed the pool encroached into the easement and onto City Property. At the May 2nd City Council meeting, the council approved to sell the 3,030 square feet of property that was encroached upon. Now the owner is seeking to get approval to vacate the easement and merge the two parcels into one parcel.


A. Consider a Preliminary Plat request for “Whisper Ridge Phases 5 and 6” to create twenty-seven (27) lots on 10.76 acres. The owner / developer is Mr. Carey Blake and the representative is Ms. Brandee Walker, Bush & Gudgell. The property is zoned R-1-10 (Single Family Residential 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). The property is located at approximately Indian Hills Drive and 700 South. Case No. 2013-PP-019.

Mr. Jenkins presented the Preliminary Plat request above. Staff comments included: (1) To handle the drainage from this development the applicant is proposing to construct a permanent detention basin along Indian Hills Drive. The detention basin will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. There is an existing storm drain line in Indian Hills Drive. The developer is proposing to connect the detention basin to this existing storm drain to drain the detention basin. (2) The developer is proposing islands in the roadway at the entrance to the development. The developer will be required to maintain these islands. (3) The developer will be required to stub utilities to the future St. George City trailhead. (4) Developer is proposing to leave the lots ungraded. A separate grading and drainage plan will be required for each lot prior to a building permit being issued by the City.

Where the road comes in to Indian Hills Drive, there is a large hillside and none of the lots will have frontage along Indian Hills Drive. The lots at the entrance will have frontage there. This presents some options. The options are: (1) to have the developer to finish the roadway improvements, such as curb, gutter and sidewalks, or (2) the developer can donate the hillside property to the City and the City takes responsibility of the improvements of the road.

Another issue is to decide if the sidewalk is necessary. The slope is 33% or greater. Commissioner Taylor commented that the sidewalk will not service anyone but the three lots due to the grade. There is a sidewalk on the one side of the road. High traffic makes it a concern crossing to the other side.

Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the drainage retention will help in a major downpour to the residents below. Mr. Jenkins replied that it will not. It is sized to handle the drainage for their own development’s needs.

Commissioner Taylor commented that if the developer gave the City the property and a park is developed in the future, then there may be a need for a sidewalk there. It may be the only purpose for a sidewalk there. If the City takes ownership of that property and there is merit to having a trail there, then the City can put in a sidewalk for the trailhead.
B. Consider a Preliminary Plat request for “Entrada at Snow Canyon – Chaco West 3N” to create a one (1) lot subdivision on 2.84 acres. The owner / developer is the Brent Beesley Trust, and the representative is Mr. Brett Henke, KUMA Engineering. The property is zoned PD-R (Planned Development Residential). The property would be located along Tacheene Drive in the Entrada Development. Case No. 2013-PP-017.

Mr. Jenkins presented the Preliminary Plat request above. Staff comments included: (1) The developer will be required to provide a turn-around and a fire hydrant on site because of the depth of the lot. (2) Roadway frontage improvements have already been completed.

C. Consider a Preliminary Plat request for “The Legends at Cactus Flats” to create twelve (12) lots on 3.75 acres. The owner/developer is Mr. Glen Bundy and the representative is Mr. Roger Bundy, R & B Surveying. The property is zoned R-1-10 (Single Family Residential 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). The property is located along the west side of 2100 East north of 2450 South. Case No. 2013-PP-018.

Mr. Jenkins presented the Preliminary Plat request above. Staff comments included: (1) There is a proposed master planned 50-foot roadway on the north side of this project. Currently this roadway ends at the northwest corner of the property. The roadway is planned to extend through this property to 2100 East. The developer is proposing that this roadway not be extended through the property. To do this, the City would require that 2330 South Street be vacated from where it currently ends at the northwest corner of the property to the west to 1950 East Street. (2) The property owner to the north currently uses their property to store their cattle during certain times of the year.

Staff is not entirely in favor of this because they would like the road to go all the way through to provide an access for traffic to 3000 East. There is a large grade change and the cattle owner uses it for his cattle. The applicant provided another option if this one is not accepted. This option would take the road into John Hafen’s property. Commissioner Read asked Mr. Jenkins if he talked to Mr. Hafen about this. He has, but not about the second option he is showing tonight. Mr. Hafen’s concern is if the road is not extended, he will not be able to develop his property because there isn’t frontage to a road.

Commissioner Bracken feels it would be good to have that road in that area. But in order to do that, the parties need to come to an agreement with the three owners of the property before coming before Planning Commission.

Commissioner Taylor feels that the City needs to keep the interest of the City in mind and have the road go through for continuity. He agrees that they should come back to Planning Commission after reaching an agreement between property owners.

Representative Roger Bundy reported that if the road is forced to go straight through it would cause half of the twelve lots to be lost. In the case of the second option that was discussed, (going through John Hafen’s property), the area within the roadway that makes the two curves puts less impact on his property then going straight through, taking half the road through the entire length of his property.

Applicant Glen Bundy commented that he has been working with John Hafen and feels he has tried to look at all possibilities.

Commissioner Taylor commented that it is in Mr. Hafen’s best interest to put a road through it or it is inaccessible to develop his property. Commissioner Taylor asked Glen Bundy what Mr. Hafen’s objection is to take the road more to the north of him. Glen Bundy replied that he doesn’t want housing by his trails.

Councilman Jimmie Hughes entered the meeting at 5:40 PM.

D. Consider a Preliminary Plat request for “Rio Lindo Estates Phase 1” (former “Palomar”), (later renamed “Riverside Cliffs Phase 1”), to create twenty-eight (28) lots on 9.64 acres. The owner/developer is Mr. Dean Larson, and the representative is Rosenberg Associates. The property is zoned R-1-8 (Single Family Residential 8,000 square foot minimum lot size). The property is located south of Riverside Drive at approximately 1900 East. Case No. 2013-PP-021.

Mr. Jenkins presented the Preliminary Plat request above. Staff comments included: (1) The developer is proposing islands in the roadways at both entrances to the subdivision. The developer also has an area that will be landscaped along the frontage of Riverside Drive. The developer is proposing to form an HOA to maintain these two islands and the landscaping along Little Valley Road. (2) A Preliminary Plat for the original overall subdivision was approved by City Council in April 2006 and the Final Plat for phase 1 was approved in November 2006. However, in 2008 the General Plan was amended to change the land use to medium density residential and in 2009 a zone change was approved for PD-Residential. However, this zone change lapsed after 18 months when no further action was taken on the property and the zone reverted back to the original R-1-8. The developer is proposing an R-1-8 subdivision. (3) The access roadway on the west side of the project is proposed to be constructed on City property. The City and the original developer agreed to this if the developer would improve the entire roadway. (4) The original developer installed most of the underground utilities for this subdivision, graded the proposed roadways, and constructed a number of the rock walls shown on the Preliminary Plat.

The developer is asking to donate a part of it to the City, but the Parks Department isn’t in favor of this because they do not feel it meets the definition of Open Space.

E. Consider a Preliminary Plat request for “Stone Cliff Phase 11” to create thirty-one (31) lots on 16.26 acres. The owner/developer is Kay Traveller and the representative is Mr. Gail Maxwell. The property is zoned PD-R (Planned Development Residential). The property is located in Stone Cliff at approximately 1600 South and 2550 East. Case No. 2013-PP-020.

Mr. Jenkins presented the Preliminary Plat request above. Staff comments included: (1) There is an existing utility easement on the subdivision to the north between lots 10 and 11 of Stone Cove Phase 1. The developer is proposing to extend sewer and storm drain between lots 1106 and 1107 of this subdivision and through the utility easement between lots 10 and 11 of Stone Cove. Currently there are two existing homes on lots 10 and 11. Extending the utilities through this easement would require improvements on these two lots to be disrupted. (2) The developer is proposing to not complete roadway improvements along the current “construction access” to provide a second access to the development. The developer is proposing that a second access for the Stone Cliff Development be provided further to the east in the future. The developer owns the property directly east of this subdivision but does not own the property to the north along 1450 South. (3) As with other phases of Stone Cliff, the developer is proposing to eliminate sidewalk in this phase. The developer is proposing to provide a wider pavement section to allow pedestrians to walk along the roadway. (4) The developer is proposing rock walls along each lot to account for the change in elevation between the lots and the proposed private roadways.

Chairman Bracken acknowledged the Boy Scouts who were in attendance for their Citizenship in the Community merit badge.


Consider a proposed amendment to the City Zoning Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 2 “Definitions” and add a new sub-section to Title 10, Chapter 14, “Supplementary and Qualifying Regulations” to regulate cargo containers with specific requirements in all zones. City of St. George, applicant. Case No. 2013-ZRA-001.

Craig Harvey, Planner I, presented the above Zoning Regulation Amendment regarding cargo containers.

The Mayor and City Council has requested staff to conduct research and propose an ordinance providing regulations for the use of cargo containers as accessory buildings used for storage in residential and other zones.

Mr. Harvey explained the details of two proposed amendment for the Planning Commission to consider and approve:
Option A: Adds language to allow the use of Cargo Containers as a permitted use in all zones with some restrictions
Option B: Adds language that allows Cargo Containers in most zones, except for all single-family and multi-family residential zones. In those zones, Cargo Containers would be not permitted. This category does not apply to Ag zones.

Chairman Bracken opened the public hearing.

Scott Roper of Custom Container, (which is located in St. George in the Fort Pierce Industrial Park), acknowledged that some people feel cargo containers are ugly.

Mr. Roper believes there are issues with the section of the ordinance that states the containers cannot be in view. It is an issue for commercial areas. There are department stores, for instance, that use the containers during remodels, holiday inventory and other scenarios and they cannot hide them from public view. He asked if these scenarios would fall under “temporary uses”. He also feels that if there are regulations for cargo containers, that they also need regulations on “tough sheds.”

Mr. Roper reported that there are many benefits of cargo containers. One is that they are dust and rodent proof making them valuable for storage. Another is the security against theft, especially for construction sites. Mr. Roper also mentioned that restoration companies use these containers to store household contents while they repair homes following flood events. Mr. Roper would like to see the condition of the container addressed in the ordinance.

Commissioner Taylor commented that cargo containers are a superior product and he inquired as to where the concerns originated from regarding them. Staff replied that an event where a resident had an unattractive cargo container in their driveway caused neighbors to complain.

Commissioner Campbell commented that he feels they need more time to absorb the information for further discussion. He stated that he was first against the containers being allowed in residential areas, but after hearing the presented information, but he may consider options for it. He stated that if containers are permanent in commercial areas he would like them to be hid from view. If they are for temporary use, it is fine to be in view.

Councilman Hughes thanked Mr. Harvey for contacting Custom Containers to get their feedback.

Planning Commissioners had different views on how detailed or restrictive the language of the ordinance should be.

Chairman Bracken closed the public hearing.


Consider a request for a Building Design Conceptual Site Plan (BDCSP) review of a proposed mid-size assisted living and memory care community to be called “The Retreat at Sunbrook.” The site is located on Dixie Drive at approximately 360 North. The zoning is C3 (General Commercial). The representative is Mr. David Gardner. Case No. 2013-BDCSP-004.

Ray Snyder, Planner II, presented the above BDCSP request. Regarding a BDCSP (Building Design Conceptual Site Plan) application; Title 10 “Zoning Ordinance,” Chapter 10 “Commercial Zones” Section 10-10-5.I, for buildings with a ground floor (footprint) of 20,000 square feet or more shall be subject to design review. Thus this project requires the submittal of a colored site development plan, a written text, colored elevations, a colored rendering, and a color and materials sample board.
A Preliminary Plat will later also be processed for this site. This will be Lot 2 of that plat. A nursing home is a permitted use in the C3 zone (per section 10-10-2).

The project will consist of developing the site and constructing one two-story, wood framed building with an elevator. This total building will be 57,954 square feet (30,869 main level and 27,085 upper level). It will provide a total of 50 assisted living apartments and 14 secure memory care suites for a total of 64 units. The unit mix will include a balance of studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom suites. Memory care suites shall be located in a lower wing of the facility and shall be secured with keypad access. The memory care wing shall also feature its own secured outdoor area. This site is accessed from Dixie Drive.

The project will include fenced patios & decks (except memory care), a library, computer center, salon & spa, soup & salad bar, centralized laundry room, theater room (which can expand to accommodate church services), fitness/therapy center, common dining room, private dining room, billiard & gathering area, and warming kitchen. Site features include: views, carports, raised garden plots, landscaping, walking paths, water features, gazebo, BBQ area, courtyard, bocce ball court, putting green and fire pit area.

A reduced setback was also requested for the side and rear where the Planning Commission determines such setback is unnecessary. This project is requesting a reduced setback on the north side for a decorative trellis.

The applicant has provided a colored rendering, colored elevations, and material sample boards; the building will have earth tones exterior building walls will have synthetic stucco, cultured stone accents, and varied architectural design with pop outs for architectural relief and interest.

Applicant, David Gardener, addressed the Planning Commission. This business will function as a sister property to the Retreat at Sun River. They want to keep the brand consistency. The area they are proposing this for does not currently have anything like this. The building itself will greatly mirror the Retreat at Sun River with quality outdoor living. At the rear, they have a future proposed trail.

Commissioner Campbell asked if there are exposed mechanical units. Mr. Gardner replied that they are. They are located on the flat roof and are shielded by the parapet wall.

Commissioner Wilkinson commented that she lives in this area and she is glad this would clean up that area.

Mr. Gardener commented that they also chose this site for the views to the south and west. He would like the wash cleaned up and beautified for the residents. He wanted to know what the City’s stance was on allowing them to beautify the wash (clean it up, plant grass and a few trees). It would be City property once they dedicate that area.

Mr. Jenkins reported that Laura Taylor from the Parks Department visited the site and talked to Legal Department about allowing the applicant to do this. They were not in favor of it because it is City property and there is some liability to the City if that is allowed. Commissioner Read commented that maybe they could let them clean it up but not landscape it. Mr. Snyder added that this probably cannot be worked out tonight; it would have to be worked out with the Legal Department later.


A. Consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a detached accessory garage of 17 feet, which exceeds the allowable height of 15 feet. The subject property is located at 1538 West 3780 South. The zoning is R-1-10 (Single Family Residential 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). Mr. and Mrs. Darin Snow are the applicants. Case No. 2013-CUP-007.

Mr. Harvey presented the above CUP request regarding garage height. Staff comments were as follows: (1) The proposed structure will be located in the rear yard 40 feet from the main dwelling and 10 feet from the rear property line and 4 feet from the side property line. (2) The proposed structure will encroach onto City easements and will require a JUC (Joint Utilities Committee) review prior to construction. (3) The detached garage will have similar finishes (stucco and tile roof) as the existing home and similar colors as noted on the drawings. (4) There will be an attached bathroom (sink and toilet only) and a pool equipment storage room, neither room can be accessed from inside the garage. (5) Staff recommends approval.

B. Consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a detached accessory garage of 17 feet, which exceeds the allowable height of 20 feet. The subject property is located at 538 Los Alamitos Drive. The zoning is R-1-10 (Single Family Residential 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). Mr. Charles James is the applicant. Case No. 2013-CUP-008.

This item was postponed because the applicant was unavailable to attend.

C. Consider a request for an amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit which established “Desert Solace” an intensive residential treatment facility for adult male clients who suffer from addiction to pornography and other sexual behaviors through the use of a holistic, task-oriented approach. This amendment would add treatment of chemical addiction, gambling, and other behavioral addictions to the program and increase the maximum occupancy from 10 to 16. The applicant is Mr. Mark Jorgensen. The zoning is A-5 (Agricultural 5 acre minimum lot size). The property is located at 4200 N 1239 W / Lot 8 JEL subdivision. Case No. 2013-CUP-006.

Attorney Farnsworth entered the meeting at 7:08 PM. He indicated that he had been delayed because he was prosecuting for the City in Justice Court.

Mr. Snyder presented the request for an amendment to a previously approved CUP listed above. Desert Solace has been in operation since June 2012 as a marriage and family rehabilitation center. The residential clients are men (ages 18 and older) whose marriage and family have been threatened by their addiction to pornography and other destructive behavior. The facility would now like to include addiction and gambling, and other behavioral addictions. The facility would operate 7 days a week and 24 hours a day. Single family homes surround this residence.

In 2012, the applicant proposed to operate a 60 day residential treatment program that would operate as a marriage and rehabilitation center. The clients would be men whose marriage and family relationships are threatened by their addiction to pornography and other destructive behaviors.

Originally in 2012, the applicant stated that the facility would not treat drug, alcohol, and chemical addiction and that any clients with substance abuse must be free of chemical dependence to be admitted into the program. However, in 2013 after operating for a year the applicant is returning and requesting that this CUP be amended to permit treatment of co-existing addictions.

Parking requirements were discussed.

At the 2012 Planning Commission meeting no one spoke in opposition to this request and no correspondence has been received in either opposition or support. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions and findings: (1) Shall adhere to City Zoning Ordinance Section 10-5-3 for “Residential Treatment Facility,” (2) a City Business License shall be obtained, (3) capacity shall not exceed 10 residents at any given time. (4) Shall adhere to the program as described in the “Program Narrative,” (5) shall adhere to the “Community Impact Report” as submitted dated April 20, 2012 (Section 10-5-3.E), (6) shall adhere to the “Policies and Procedures” as submitted, (7) a final fire inspection is required prior to operation. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions; such as the posting of fire escape routes, smoke alarms, etc., (8) a minimum of 30% of green space shall be provided, (9) the CUP is not transferable, (10) applicants shall be of a Tier I or less only as described in SORNA, (11) applicants shall undergo a rigid screening process before acceptance into the program, (12) criminal background checks shall be required, (13) per Section 10-5-3.B, the police department shall be notified regarding any felons, (14) a minimum of 8 parking spaces shall be provided - all spaces other than within a garage shall be delineated by striping – and if approved tonight this would change to 10, (15) shall comply with CUP findings.
Mr. Snyder explained that this is an agricultural zone, but a single family residence is permitted on a 5 acre parcel per Section 10-5-2. Per Section 10-5-3, a residential treatment facility is a conditional use. Mr. Snyder listed the requirements they must follow.

The applicant, Mark Jorgenson, explained that they have been addressing more cross-addiction issues and need this amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow them to help those clients. They want to treat each of the issues concurrently. He explained that in some cases, insurance would help some of the clients pay for their care if both issues could be addressed at once, because certain types of care are not covered, but when the cross-addictions are handled at once, it may be covered.

The applicant asked if he would have to go through the process and cost of revising the Impact Study, he didn’t feel that just adding six occupants to the revised information would be necessary. Mr. Snyder replied that the study would have to accurately show the new number in the study. Attorney Farnsworth concurred as it is a part of the initial approval.